On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:11:48 -0500, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2011/4/20 <exar...@twistedmatrix.com>: > > On 08:20 am, victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Le mardi 19 avril 2011 à 22:42 -0400, Terry Reedy a écrit : > >>> > >>> On 4/19/2011 5:59 PM, victor.stinner wrote: > >>> > >>> >   Issue #11223: Add threading._info() function providing informations > >>> > about the > >>> > thread implementation. > >>> > >>> Since this is being documented, making it part of the public api, why > >>> does it have a leading underscore? > >> > > > > Can I propose something wildly radical?  Maybe the guarantees made about > > whether an API will be available in future versions of Python (ostensibly > > what "public" vs "private" is for) should not be tightly coupled to the > > decision about whether to bother to explain what an API does? > > With what criteria would you propose to replace it with?
I believe Jean-Paul was suggesting that just because an interface is marked as "private" and might go away or change in the future does not automatically mean it must also be undocumented. To which I say +1. (Note that we already have a whole module like that: test.support.) -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
